I have this on order thanks to somebody's pointing out to me what it actually is on another thread recently. I look forward to its arrival, as a long-term lover of the NRSV, on which it draws heavily in many places.

Most often, I use the OSB because that is what I have, and that's fine for what it is. However, I would welcome the NETS, and indeed any worthy LXX translation into English that gives us Orthodox Christians a bible that is legitimate in our own tradition, without having to rely on Masoretic bibles produced for other people.

M

Logged

'If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved.' - St John (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

SAAS, as published in the OSB. I took a look at NETS recently, but was immediately put off by "Happy is the man" rather that "Blessed..." I don't know Greek, let alone Hebrew, well enough to know which English word more accurately conveys the thought here. That aside, I will likely refer to NETS, Asser, and other online versions for comparison purposes simply because they are convenient.

SAAS, as published in the OSB. I took a look at NETS recently, but was immediately put off by "Happy is the man" rather that "Blessed..." I don't know Greek, let alone Hebrew, well enough to know which English word more accurately conveys the thought here.

Neither do I. However, in my reading of western liturgics, I have come across claims that the line in the Roman Mass "Blessed are they who are called to his supper" is better rendered as "Happy are they..." to convey the biblical sense of what is being said. I do not know what merit that has. Certainly "blessed" has become well established in both instances.

Logged

'If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved.' - St John (Kovalevsky) of Saint-Denis

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

The OSB. I don't know if it's the best or not but it's the one I have. Last year I read the whole OSB through from Gen to Rev including the books I had never read as a Protestant. I found the Book of Tobit to be delightful! And I discovered that there is a greater difference between the LXX and the Masoretic OT than I realized.

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Agreed: I know it is technically a possible translation but it ignores the traditional renderings which I think are important in any Christian translation of Scripture.

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Agreed: I know it is technically a possible translation but it ignores the traditional renderings/ understandings which I think are important in any Christian translation of Scripture.

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Agreed: I know it is technically a possible translation but it ignores the traditional renderings which I think are important in any Christian translation of Scripture.

Except that HERE the NETS version IS more faithful to the original.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Agreed: I know it is technically a possible translation but it ignores the traditional renderings which I think are important in any Christian translation of Scripture.

Except that HERE the NETS version IS more faithful to the original.

How so? If it the word in question can be translated as either "spirit" or "wind" then why not translate it in accordance with the Tradition instead of choosing "wind" just to be more academic and theologically neutral?

I also like the NETS and sometimes use it in tandem with the RSV-CE2 for the NT.

My only complaints on the NETS is that it is theologically neutral (as in translating the "Spirit of God" over the waters in Genesis as the "divine wind" (as if Creation was the result of celestial flatulence- Big Bang theory anyone) and the overly zealous gender-neutral approach. It's not as bad as it is in the NRSV but it is still there more often than is warranted.

Curiously, "divine wind" is an acceptable translation, as is "divine breath". Greek is so much fun.

Agreed: I know it is technically a possible translation but it ignores the traditional renderings which I think are important in any Christian translation of Scripture.

Except that HERE the NETS version IS more faithful to the original.

How so? If it the word in question can be translated as either "spirit" or "wind" then why not translate it in accordance with the Tradition instead of choosing "wind" just to be more academic and theologically neutral?

What "tradition"? Translations are just that, approximations mostly when one is dealing with two very distantly, if at all, related languages.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Why be deliberately obtuse? What do you mean "what tradition"? Has one Father (native Greek speaker or otherwise) in two thousand years preferred "divine wind" over "Spirit" in his commentary on Genesis?

Why be deliberately obtuse? What do you mean "what tradition"? Has one Father (native Greek speaker or otherwise) in two thousand years preferred "divine wind" over "Spirit" in his commentary on Genesis?

Chuckle...you really want to argue tonight? At least you did not ask for a Japanese translation: kamikazi

We native Greek speakers don't translate, we just read it.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Why be deliberately obtuse? What do you mean "what tradition"? Has one Father (native Greek speaker or otherwise) in two thousand years preferred "divine wind" over "Spirit" in his commentary on Genesis?

Chuckle...you really want to argue tonight? At least you did not ask for a Japanese translation: kamikazi

We native Greek speakers don't translate, we just read it.

My bad: I assumed that even native Greek Orthodox speakers read the Scriptures in harmony with the Fathers to avoid ambiguity when multiple translations were possible.

The Greek Fathers did not read translations but they still made choices when reading the original text as to which nuances of meaning were the proper reading to understand (in the case of "wind" vs. "spirit" we know which they habitually chose based on their commentaries)

The non-Greek Fathers both used and made translations (e.g. Blessed Jerome).

The Greek Fathers did not read translations but they still made choices when reading the original text as to which nuances of meaning were the proper reading to understand.

True. And they did not experience this artificial ambiguity.

Quote

The non-Greek Fathers both used and made translations.

Sounds (or reads) logical, but is that true? Which ones, specifically?

Precisely my point on the ambiguity- the NETS translators have added ambiguity in this verse where the Fathers had no ambiguity.

The short answer as to which Fathers used translations is: all the ones who could not read Greek. Which were more and more of them as time went on. Any article on early Bible translations will show that there were many translations in use in the early centuries. Blessed Augustine for example used the Old Italic version in Latin because he could not read Greek.

Blessed Jerome replaced this Old Italic version with his translation of the Vulgate which became THE version for the West for a millenium afterwards. Pope St. Gregory and all the Fathers of the West after Jerome based their commentaries on this one.

This is getting tedious. St. Augustine is the only one I really am familiar with (and the only one you specifically note).

And I have no opinion on the NETS version actually; only one about Greek.

Update: I will amend my post - the DO prefer 'Spirit of God' even if other renderings are acceptable.

You asked a question requiring a factual answer which I gave.

I specifically named Bl. Augustine and St. Gregory Dialogos and mentioned all the pre-Jerome Western Fathers (using various versions) and post-Jerome Western Fathers (usually using the Vulgate) as well as the fact of translations from the earliest times (both in the West and the East (e.g. Syriac Fathers) to demonstrate that it was only the Greek Fathers who did not use translations.

You expressed an opinion on the NETS when you said its translation of "wind" over "spirit" was accurate, so you do have an opinion on it even though, thankfully, you prefer the traditional rendering.

I am only pointing out that rendering a word within a Bible verse in English in a way it was never understood by anyone in either the Jewish or Christian Traditions needlessly obscures the historical understanding of the verse for non-Greek readers.

I suppose that, faced with the two choices of "wind" or "spirit", the NETS translators picked the former solely because as academics they thought it was theologically neutral. Which is a silly thing to expect from a theological book which was written to be understood from within a particular theological tradition (whether Jewish or Christian).

I am only pointing out that rendering a word within a Bible verse in English in a way it was never understood by anyone in either the Jewish or Christian Traditions needlessly obscures the historical understanding of the verse for non-Greek readers.

I suppose that, faced with the two choices of "wind" or "spirit", the NETS translators picked the former solely because as academics they thought it was theologically neutral. Which is a silly thing to expect from a theological book which was written to be understood from within a particular theological tradition (whether Jewish or Christian).

I agree with you. The "wind" rendering of pneuma was the reason I didn't buy the NETS.

Besides, the Latin Fathers used the breath meaning quite often when talking about the Holy Spirit. They didn't deny that the Spirit was it's own hypostasis of course.

There's also the EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible) but it hasn't been completed yet.

My favourite is NETS cause, even though I don't like all of it's readings (such as "divine wind" Genesis 1:2), it's one of the few that is an actual new translation not just a revision of Brenton's translation. Also a lot of these Brenton revisions don't include the Deuterocanon, the original Brenton edition didn't include it either.